mrsir2009
Apr 13, 11:22 PM
Now I'd just wait for the iPhone 5
Yup. I'm going to get an iPhone 5. Come to think of it, it will be my first Apple product thats not a Mac.
Yup. I'm going to get an iPhone 5. Come to think of it, it will be my first Apple product thats not a Mac.
dakwar
Mar 29, 12:38 PM
Does anybody else see the 9.6 inside the apple?
Sept. 6th?
Whatever it means, it's interesting.
I see an itunes logo in the leaf too. Perhaps they are by design.
Sept. 6th?
Whatever it means, it's interesting.
I see an itunes logo in the leaf too. Perhaps they are by design.
DaBlackMamba
Mar 15, 01:42 AM
I am going to head out to mine at around 8 AM when the mall opens and the apple store is opening 1 hour early so at 9 AM hopefully I can grab my 16GB 3G ATT.
Even though ATT reception sucks in some places around OC, I don't use the 3G too much so it's better for the money and the free month.
Even though ATT reception sucks in some places around OC, I don't use the 3G too much so it's better for the money and the free month.
cleanup
Sep 14, 09:17 AM
Yet, I'm sad nobody else understood it.
I got it, though I don't know precisely what structure it is!
Thanks. Watch for my YouTube™ unboxing later. :p
In the style of SchneiderMan? :)
I got it, though I don't know precisely what structure it is!
Thanks. Watch for my YouTube™ unboxing later. :p
In the style of SchneiderMan? :)
MacRumors
Apr 22, 04:11 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/22/iphone-5-details-3-7-inch-screen-home-button-with-gesture-area/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/22/171122-iPhone5_mockup.jpeg
Katy Perry performed her
katy perry#39;s California gurls
California Gurls Music Video
The lovely Katy Perry has just
Katy Perry in California Gurls
Katy Perry – California Gurls
Katy Perry California Gurls
Katy Perry serves up the
Katy Perry.. CALIFORNIA GURLS
Katy Perry - California Gurls
California Girls hit,
Katy Perry California Gurls
Katy Perry - quot;California
Katy Perry#39;s #39;California
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/22/171122-iPhone5_mockup.jpeg
eye
Jan 27, 03:03 PM
if you buy headphones for the style, you shouldn't be buying pairs that cost three digits.
You should buy whatever you want if you can afford it no matter what the squares say.
You should buy whatever you want if you can afford it no matter what the squares say.
dXTC
Dec 29, 12:04 PM
In subsequent interviews, Donna (her real first name; she goes by the name of "Treasure" on the BBW adult site Supersizebombshells.com) admitted that going for the record was more of a fantasy than anything, stated mainly for her online fans and FAs. She says that she would most likely stop before getting close to that 1,000 pound mark; she doesn't want to become completely immobilized.
As KnightWRX said, this is rather old news.
Personally, I've seen cuter SSBBWs. ;)
As KnightWRX said, this is rather old news.
Personally, I've seen cuter SSBBWs. ;)
iphone3gs16gb
Apr 24, 12:40 AM
This was obviously a hate crime committed by a ghetto-licious duo, them gurls went ham, fo' realz, peace dogg
nicroma
Apr 14, 01:32 PM
Nope, I've never enabled them before on my iPad as I'm not an official Apple developer and I didn't have access to the beta release that included this feature in the past.
:eek:
Awesome. I can't wait to try them.
:eek:
Awesome. I can't wait to try them.
Stellarola
Mar 31, 11:23 PM
Heinous. Absolutely hideous.
And I'm a fan of eye candy.
The faux leather is almost as bad as this "Marble" OS X mockup, from back in the day:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3392/3333642840_d905e48e47_o.jpg
I'm calling B.S. on this photo. That image isn't from Apple. Prove me wrong, please.
-Stell
And I'm a fan of eye candy.
The faux leather is almost as bad as this "Marble" OS X mockup, from back in the day:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3392/3333642840_d905e48e47_o.jpg
I'm calling B.S. on this photo. That image isn't from Apple. Prove me wrong, please.
-Stell
Steelers7510
Apr 14, 07:25 AM
I kind of feel like they are releasing this now so that they have something to hold everyone over for the iPhone 5. It is possible that Apple is going to release the iPhone 5 late in the year or early 2012 so the next one can be LTE. We all know how Apple likes to take there time adopting new technology. *cough* no 3g in 1st gen iPhone *cough* ;)
toddybody
Apr 13, 03:04 PM
No HDMI, and it will cost 2K...but oh boy will it look great on a wall!
dethmaShine
Apr 13, 11:08 AM
Cool what down ? Are you proposing my post was made out of anger ? Written text has no emotionality.
Then it has no meaning.
Honestly, that's a very stupid thing you said.
It is possible indeed, hence why I'm asking for citations to what someone posted as fact, rather than as a possibility. Citation to support the fact still has not been provided.
He did provide citation for the same; the engadget article.
But due to its inception being an Engadget based article, I wouldn't base any conclusions on that.
But yes, he did cite the argument.
Then it has no meaning.
Honestly, that's a very stupid thing you said.
It is possible indeed, hence why I'm asking for citations to what someone posted as fact, rather than as a possibility. Citation to support the fact still has not been provided.
He did provide citation for the same; the engadget article.
But due to its inception being an Engadget based article, I wouldn't base any conclusions on that.
But yes, he did cite the argument.
Plutonius
Apr 17, 11:04 PM
I really don't know how I missed him in the list. I swear, I did read it. :eek:
But then again, nies hasn't signed up yet.
But then again, nies hasn't signed up yet.
rever3nce
Apr 14, 11:27 AM
i really hope this happens . i had to re buy a new iphone 4 just a week ago . if this is true about being here by the end of april then i can just do an even exchange :D
robeddie
Apr 22, 07:00 AM
Wow, are you this much of a jerk in person?
Absolutely! But only when it's warranted.
Absolutely! But only when it's warranted.
KoukiFC3S
Mar 16, 12:32 PM
Anyone going tomorrow?
OneIzDead
Apr 18, 08:15 PM
Did you have these Gestures enabled before?
i had to activate the multi-touch gestures with "Xcode", the new 4.3.2 update doesn't activate multi-touch....
i had to activate the multi-touch gestures with "Xcode", the new 4.3.2 update doesn't activate multi-touch....
Surely
Feb 28, 01:38 PM
I honestly think that he's just ****ing with everyone.
Sonny1
Mar 31, 01:24 PM
Look for iCal[/url][/QUOTE]
Well, another loser in appearance. What is wrong with a simple calendar? Does everyone have to now deal with an electronic appointment book? Does Apple see a future so iPadded that laptops and desktops will vanish from the face of the earth?
Just as Apple decreed that all screens must now be glossy, this speeding the deterioration of eyesight, we now must deal with fake appointment books? I'm waiting for strike three, whatever they'll unthink of next.
I no longer use the meMobile calendar. I no longer buy Apple monitors or glossy-screened laptops. I have retrograded to the Mini and will stay with them, until Apple starts making only brown Minis. Or makes it impossible for any Apple device to attach to anything but an Apple monitor/screen.
I really like and appreciate OS X; I'm also apprehensive of how Apple will manage to screw that up.
Well, another loser in appearance. What is wrong with a simple calendar? Does everyone have to now deal with an electronic appointment book? Does Apple see a future so iPadded that laptops and desktops will vanish from the face of the earth?
Just as Apple decreed that all screens must now be glossy, this speeding the deterioration of eyesight, we now must deal with fake appointment books? I'm waiting for strike three, whatever they'll unthink of next.
I no longer use the meMobile calendar. I no longer buy Apple monitors or glossy-screened laptops. I have retrograded to the Mini and will stay with them, until Apple starts making only brown Minis. Or makes it impossible for any Apple device to attach to anything but an Apple monitor/screen.
I really like and appreciate OS X; I'm also apprehensive of how Apple will manage to screw that up.
leekohler
Apr 27, 01:43 PM
Nope. This was your first reply to me before I even mentioned "fact" :
Yes it was, as you were claiming to "know" that it was faked. Claiming that was offensive in the very least.
Yep, I truly hit a nerve. Your abrupt rant wasn't necessary, and why you only quoted me on it when others said the same thing is mystifying. Don't let your emotions get in the way of things.
Hi kettle.
Yes it was, as you were claiming to "know" that it was faked. Claiming that was offensive in the very least.
Yep, I truly hit a nerve. Your abrupt rant wasn't necessary, and why you only quoted me on it when others said the same thing is mystifying. Don't let your emotions get in the way of things.
Hi kettle.
HasanDaddy
Mar 15, 09:06 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just took a pic with Mystikal and put it on our facebooks
Worst case scenario? Made a new friend
It's a good day :)
Just took a pic with Mystikal and put it on our facebooks
Worst case scenario? Made a new friend
It's a good day :)
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 10:43 PM
Under normal circumstances, you're more or less right.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
leekohler
Nov 1, 07:50 AM
'Nuff said.
